Thu Jun 14, 2012 at 17:00:00 PM EDT

President

Obama: The President is actually campaigning in Ohio today. So far in 2012 we have not seen the President speaking, as he has been attending fundraiser after fundraiser. Today the President has attacked the gridlock in Washington, in other words the Republican-controlled US House, for the economic woes of the country. Of course the economy really did poorly while the Democrats controlled DC during the 2009-2010 period. The President has been in DC for 3 1/2 years now so if Washington's gridlock is hurting the economy what exactly has his role been? The economy has improved since the GOP won the House in 2010 so I am not sure how successful this line of argument will be.

Romney: Was today a preview of a line of attack during Presidential debates? Romney was also in Ohio today and he attacked the policies of the President as related to business and job creation. Romney has an easier line of attack as he can just say the economy is bad and it is the President's fault. I do not want to use this roundup to argue politics but we seeing where political news is starting to be dominated by policy arguments.

New Jersey: This poll has Obama ahead of Romney 56-33. The poll has a generous helping of Democrats in it and not many Republicans. Either way this state is not likely to be a top target for the GOP this fall.

Economy: First-time claims for unemployment benefits climbed to 386K this week. The previous week's numbers were also adjusted upward to 380K. The direction of the claims upward is nearly as important as the number itself as clearly the economy is weakening. I also note that 140,000 fewer people are receiving benefits this week as 99 and 73 week extensions are running out.

House

SC7: My crystal ball was right as a lawsuit was filed this afternoon to force a runoff between the two top Democrats. The lawsuit was filed in Horry County and yes the matter needs to be rushed ahead as the runoff date is June 26th.

California: How about a little less news but more analysis this afternoon? This article discusses how last week's primary dimmed the hopes of Democrats to retake the US House.

Turnout June 12
Republican votes cast___________ 37,421
Democrat votes cast _________ 31,212
BVAP of the 7th is 27.6%. Only around 5,000 (16%) of the Democratic turnout was from Horry (40% of the district population), and in black majority Marion (5% of the district population) as many Democrats voted as in Horry. Looking at the county returns, African American % of the Democratic electorate on June 12 could have been 55-65%. http://hosted.ap.org/​dynamic/...

It's been a while since I posted about this race and some interesting developments have happened in it lately. Just about all of the defeated candidates in the primary have chosen sides. Mecklenburg County Commission Vice-Chairman Jim Pendergraph has received the support of Richard Lynch, Dan Barry (who Robert Pittenger attacked in ads like he did Pendergraph), and Mike Steinberg. Former State Senator Pittenger has received the support of Andy Dulin, Ken Leonczyk, and Jon Gauthier. The only primary candidate left to weigh in regarding the runoff is Edwin Peacock. Rumor has it that he will endorse Pendergraph and that would be significant because Peacock was the third place finisher and the only candidate other than ones in the top two to win more than one precinct. Other recent notable endorsements are former Charlotte Mayor Richard Vinroot endorsing Pendergraph and former North Carolina Governor Jim Martin endorsing Pittenger. Pittenger was basically the sole negative campaigner in the primary but now Pendergraph is going negative and Pittenger still is but to a lesser extent. I think they're only running ads on a conservative talk radio station. If this is true, it's probably because the runoff voter universe is very small and airing ads on talk radio targets likely runoff voters. Pittenger has the money advantage but it probably will matter less in the runoff than it did in the primary. He also has the endorsement of Congressman Patrick McHenry who's old 10th district makes up some of the new 9th district. Pendergraph has the endorsement of incumbent 9th district Congresswoman Sue Myrick. I've heard a lot of people express dismay at the extent to which Pittenger attacked Pendergraph in the primary. I think Pittenger is the slight favorite to win the runoff but it is shaping up to be close race and could go either way. I'm supporting Pendergraph.

Baker had been close to Bush since his wife died, and Bush invited him to work on his senate race at a time he was down. Baker ran Bush's 80 campaign, and while he got the White House COS job with Reagan, it was as a check on the conservatives like Mease et all. Basically Baker was always anti-movement conservatives, and was basically Bush's man who Nancy borrowed as a check on more extreme members of the White House staff.

His move to the treasury opened up the White House for factional competition on Foreign Policy, most prominently between McFarland and Schultz, and figures like North came up the middle of that.

As to why Bush 41's Foreign policy team looked different. Scowcroft, Baker, and Cheney(who was a moderate at the time) were all Ford people who had been in the wilderness under Reagan, who got brought back because Bush basically let Baker chose his team.

As to why George W. Bush's team looked different, supposedly there was a lot of bad blood over the 1992 campaign. Baker did not want anything to do with it, but he was more or less forced to quit as Secretary of State to run it, and it was felt by George W. and Barbara according to reports, that he really didn't try as hard as he could have. He also apparently took too long to reject Bill Clinton's offer to return to the State Department.

Other Bush 41 figures like Powell, hurt themselves by not being loud enough in supporting Bush or flirting with McCain. Powell of course made it into the Administration, he was however never able to recover from the stench of disloyalty.

The big shift though was Cheney's movement from realist to neoconservative. Cheney was one of the big opponents of ousting Saddam in 1991, and he also blocked Wolfowitz's efforts to get the US to intervene in Croatia in 1991-1992.

I'm sure some people will call it a documentary, but it's just a long interview with George H.W. Bush with some video and photos so it isn't someone droning on for 90 minutes. He's never been the life of the party and he tells his life story in a monotone that lacks all emotion. They made his life boring. His Presidency was something like 15% of the movie. The Gulf War is covered with a few comments.

If you want to make a documentary about a President you interview his allies, his opponents. You cover the accomplishments and the criticism. There are so many important things that are skipped in this film.

When making a documentary your first rule is to entertain, to keep people interested for the whole film. If I didn't want to write about it here I would've turned it off in the first ten minutes.

will be looking at 2014. With Romney & the GOP having the trifecta in DC they will looking for a 1994 or 2010 election in 2014. Only it will be a D wave and not an R wave. I have no doubt Romney and the GOP congress will have to make some very difficult decisions in 2013-2014 period and will be vulnerable to D counter attacks.

Come to think I never thought she left SD. I thought she had some sort of teaching gig in SD.

Either way D pols announcing or thinking about 2014 runs does not surprise me one bit per reasons listed above.

If the GOP has the trifecta, 2014 will be a Dem House year for two reasons:

1. Chances are that the GOP will pick up some D+ House seats they won't be able to hold in a year that doesn't skew Republican.

2. People will be disappointed. They expect a new President to solve every problem, with rainbows and unicorns. Rainbows, sure, but not unicorns.

The Senate is going to be very difficult for the Democrats. This year they have 5 McCain seats. In 2014 there'll be 6, along with North Carolina. The GOP has Maine, Nevada, Massachusetts, Arizona, and Indiana this year. The only seat that Republicans could possibly lose in 2014 is Maine, and that's only if Collins retires. I doubt the Democrats will have a 2008 size wave. Without that, they'll have trouble. They need to hope that Rockefeller, Harkin, Baucus, and Johnson don't retire.

It will be hard to defend the needed budget cuts to the public without any revenue increases. I would hope the GOP could come up with a 85/15 deficit reduction plan (spending cuts/tax increases) because it would be easier to sell. However, they seem boxed in on the no tax pledge.

50, Male, Conservative Republican, NJ-09, originally NY-18Tell the "Food Stamps" President: self-reliance is a good thing!

Always produce overrated future statewide candidates. There are a number of impressive people who get swept in, but also a number of individuals who no one would ever have heard of otherwise. Some prove impressive, others are seen losing lopsided statewide races over the next decade.

Jim Nussle crashed and burned in Iowa, Paul Hodes proved to be generic D, Dan Lungren got crushed by 20 points in 2000(though he proved to have a second wind), George Nethercutt went nowhere, and none of the Connecticut Rs ever moved up.

Kristi Noem may be impressive. But no one outside this site would even be discussing her or Berg, or Josh Mandel for anything had John McCain been elected President in 2008. Sometimes you get lucky with that(see Marco Rubio or Susan Martinez who also might be nowhere now) but its something to remember.

Senate Budget Chairman Mark Leno (D-San Francisco) called the Republicans' boycott "unnecessary and unfortunate political theater." He wondered whether they would be forgoing their pay because they won't be at the hearing.

Democrats in Indiana and Wisconsin flee to Illinois to prevent the legislature passing bills, but Republicans skipping a hearing is political theater. I wonder if Sen. Leno thinks Democrats who missed weeks of work should've foregone their pay.